EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
Date: 09-11-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (Republic of)
Keywords: Country of origin, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Date: 03-10-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Following on from a Rule 39 measure from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Tribunal ordered the police prefect to register the applicant's claim for asylum in France.
Date: 06-07-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Real risk, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system.
Date: 28-06-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Sudan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions, Request to take back
There are systemic deficiencies in the Italian asylum procedure and in its reception conditions for asylum applicants which amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Date: 05-01-2018
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Serious harm, Unaccompanied minor
It is within the powers of the interim relief judge to order urgent measures to stop serious and illegal harm to fundamental rights of migrants in Calais.
Date: 31-07-2017
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Individual assessment, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Personal interview, Request to take back
The applicant had sufficiently established that if returned to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation he would not benefit from an examination of his asylum application in line with procedural guarantees as required by the right to asylum. Such a transfer decision thus violated Article 4 of the Charter.
Date: 27-09-2016
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Effective access to procedures, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Material reception conditions, Reception conditions
The considerable delays of receiving an appointment at the Prefect in order to register an asylum application means that applicants are deprived of legally entitled guarantees, notably material ones. Consequentially such delays constitute a serious and manifestly illegal infringement upon the fundamental right to asylum.
The Police Prefect must register the asylum application within 10 days of the notification of this decision.
Date: 22-02-2016
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Accommodation centre, Best interest of the child, Child Specific Considerations, Effective access to procedures, Health (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid, Material reception conditions, Procedural guarantees, Reception conditions, Unaccompanied minor, Vulnerable person
The Applicants asked the Administrative Tribunal of Lille (the “Tribunal”) to order the relevant authorities to take urgent interim relief measures to guarantee the fundamental freedoms of the population of the Calais camp.
The Administrative Judge acceded to several of the applicants’ demands (identification of vulnerable minors, hygiene, cleanliness, emergency vehicle access) and held that the situation in the Calais camp constituted a grave and blatantly illegal breach of the right of the persons residing there not to be subjected to degrading and inhuman...
Date: 02-11-2015
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Return
On appeal to an Administrative Court, the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of newly presented evidence by a claimant to a Tribunal is on the adverse party, in the present case the Prefect. A third country national can be returned to a country where he/she can be lawfully admitted. However, as provided by Article L.513-2 of the French Code on Entry of Foreigners and Right to Asylum, a third country national cannot be returned to a country if the latter proves that his/her life or freedom would be threatened or he/she would be exposed treatments contrary to Article 3...
Date: 26-10-2015
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment filterInhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Dublin Transfer 11
- Subsidiary Protection 10
- Reception conditions 8
- Responsibility for examining application 7
- Effective access to procedures 6
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 6
- Material reception conditions 4
- Procedural guarantees 4
- Country of origin 3
- Detention 3
- Individual assessment 3
- Individual threat 3
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Real risk 3
- Country of origin information 2
- Effective remedy (right to) 2
- Gender Based Persecution 2
- Humanitarian considerations 2
- Indiscriminate violence 2
- Internal protection 2
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 2
- Political Opinion 2
- Request to take back 2
- Return 2
- Serious harm 2
- Trafficking in human beings 2
- Unaccompanied minor 2
- Vulnerable person 2
- Accommodation centre 1
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 1
- Best interest of the child 1
- Burden of proof 1
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Family unity (right to) 1
- Female genital mutilation 1
- First country of asylum 1
- Health (right to) 1
- Internal armed conflict 1
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 1
- Personal circumstances of applicant 1
- Personal interview 1
- Race 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Residence document 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 4
- Kosovo 4
- Congo (DRC) 3
- Sri Lanka 3
- Armenia 2
- Nigeria 2
- Algeria 1
- Cameroon 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Guinea 1
- Russia (Chechnya) 1
- Serbia 1
- Sudan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
